TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2011 (1) TMI 1197
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ications are disposed of. W.P.(C) 22/2011 & CM No. 33/2011 (for stay) 1A. Notice. Mr. Neil Hilderth, Advocate accepts notice for Respondent No. 1 and Mr. M.L. Lahoty, Advocate accepts notice for Respondent No. 2. Respondent Nos. 3 and 4 are proforma parties. With the consent of the parties the petitions are finally heard. 2. The challenge in these writ petitions is to the order dated 20-5-2010 passed by the Competition Commission of India ('CCI') under section 26(1) of the Competition Act, 2002 ('Act'), an order dated 20-9-2010 passed by the CCI under section 33 of the Act and an order dated 2-12-2010 passed by the CCI directing a further inquiry. The further relief is for quashing of the investigation report dated 13-10-2010 of th....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....pearing for the CCI pointed out that the observations of the Supreme Court in the SAIL's case (supra) made a distinction between the reasons to be given by the CCI while forming a prima facie opinion under section 26(1) of the Act and the reasons it was expected to give while passing an order by way of adjudication, including an order under section 33 of the Act. 6. This Court finds merit in the submissions made by Mr. Tripathi on this aspect. A perusal of the SAIL's case (supra) would show that a distinction was indeed made by the Supreme Court between the order to be passed by the CCI while forming a prima facie opinion under section 26(1) of the Act and other orders. It was clarified in para 31 of the judgment that the CCI "is expe....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....it was perhaps not consistent with the requirement of regulation 21(7) read with regulation 21(8) of the Competition Commission of India (General) regulations, 2009 ('Regulations'). On the other hand, Mr. Tripathi pointed out that consistent with the requirement of regulation 21(7) the investigation report of the ADG was sent to the Petitioners for its objections. These objections would be considered at the hearing fixed for 6-1-2011. It was further pointed out that the stage envisaged under regulation 21(8) has not yet been reached. 9. In order to appreciate the above submissions, a reference may be made to regulations 21(7) and 21(8) which reads as under: "21(7) If the report of the Director General mentioned under sub-regulation (1....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....hat a further inquiry is called for, then it would fix a further hearing in terms of regulation 21(8). However, that stage is yet to be reached. Consequently, this Court finds no infirmity in the communication dated 2-12-2010 issued by the CCI to the Petitioners. 11. The final submission of Mr. Desai concerns the non-supply of documents forming part of the ADG's investigation report. In response to a letter by the Petitioners requesting for copies of the documents, the office of the CCI wrote to the Petitioners stating that many of the documents were in the public domain and that the Petitioners would be allowed only an inspection of the records. 12. Mr. Tripathi, learned ASG, on instructions, states that copies of each and every docu....